Two Highly Recommended Impeachment Reads

Christopher Roach, an attorney, has published two articles on impeachment during the past two weeks. They're both excellent, clear expositions of the principles behind what's going on. While it's impossible for Roach to offer an entirely dispositive opinion on how Trump and the Senate should proceed--simply because political considerations will inevitably intrude--his discussion is conceptually useful. By presenting a clear conceptual framework and understanding of impeachment under our Constitution, we get a better idea how whatever path is chosen should be framed in order to stand with the principles of our constitutional order.

I won't attempt to summarize each article--while very readable, they're also thorough and need to be digested fully. However, a few remarks ...

The first article, published today, presents the case for simply dismissing the articles of impeachment: Can the Senate Dismiss the Impeachment Without a Trial? It can and it should. Roach's argument is principled and is one with which I'm entirely in agreement--except that I tend to believe that the president would be better served politically by a vote to acquit. Nevertheless, I highly recommend the article in its entirety because Roach presents his case well and, in so doing, also presents a fairly thorough comparison of impeachment trials to ordinary criminal trials. My one reservation is that, while of course it's inevitable that Roach should proceed by way of analogy, I believe that analogizing of the House to a grand jury is insufficient and, in key aspects, misleading. When he gets to the Senate's role he recognizes that such analogies can't be pressed too far.

Here is his conclusion--and bear in mind that his conclusion is based on his previous pretty thorough presentation:

Recommended Reads: Fear Of Juries And Predictions For 2020

There's a thoughtful article this morning at American Conservative--Why Americans Fear Trial by Jury. As if the testimony of NSA whistleblowers about the government's spying capabilities weren't enough to scare you out of dissent from establishment CW, this article explains why it's such a bad idea to try to explain to twelve of your peers that your innocent of ... whatever. Is this really what Magna Carta was about?

However, I recommend this article in particular because the author gets into the whole concepts of "conspiracy" and "honest services fraud"--which I have suggested as the basis for draining the Swamp that gave us the Russia Hoax and the Mueller Witchhunt. The author critiques those concepts in the context of the college admissions scandal, and the prosecution of the celebrity parents. Here's a relevant excerpt:

The federal charge was not aimed at the acts themselves but merely at a conspiracy to commit a crime—what the great American jurist Learned Hand warned against, calling such charges the “darling of the modern prosecutor’s nursery.” Conspiracy is loved by prosecutors because the defendant does not have to commit a crime, just generally plan something with someone else. In this case, it was about hiring an educational services agent whom the government charged with “honest services” fraud. 

The celebrities themselves did not commit such fraud but “conspired” with the agent “facilitator” to do so. Depriving another of his right to honest services is itself a problematic concept, since, as defense attorney Jeremy Hogan has asked, what if you tip a waiter for a corner table? You would apparently be guilty of depriving other customers of the honest services of that restaurant. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was blunter, asking how is it fair “to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail.”

Before you jump aboard the St. Antonin Scalia bandwagon, I would caution that the same sainted jurist found FISA and the criminalization of "lying to the FBI" essentially unproblematic. There's more to this whole problem than these two paragraphs suggest.

UPDATED: Should Pompeo Be Gone ASAP?

As I've indicated before, I have no use for Mike Pompeo--I see him as undermining President Trump's foreign policy goals at every turn. The latest events in Syraq are reinforcing not only my misgivings but those of many others. Here's one long analysis at Zerohedge: Did Pompeo Go Off Reservation In Iraq Attack? Note the silence of Trump. Has he finally decided, as with Bolton and McMaster and the others, that he can't be president with Pompeo around?

Here is Mark Steyn with a Colonel Macgregor. As Steyn notes at the beginning, America has blown trillions on its wars with nothing to show for it. How long can this go on? How can Trump tolerate insubordination? Can he get reelected if his anti-war platform is yanked out from under his feet?

UPDATE 1: Maybe it would be a good idea to have, like, a national conversation on matters of fundamental importance--like war and peace--before the SecState goes off half-cocked trying to start major land wars in Asia? We could discuss concepts like ... why? Or, Are there alternatives?

U.S Embassy in #Baghdad #Iraq pic.twitter.com/BC4k2pjpc2

— Steven nabil (@thestevennabil) December 31, 2019

UPDATE 2: I'm not a reflexive Buchananite by any means, however Pat offers some thoughts here that are worth pondering: How Trump Can Derail His Own Reelection - Stumble Into War. My view is that Making America Great Again begins at home, and having Trump as president for as long as possible is our best hope for making significant progress toward that goal. We have enough problems to solve right here in America. That doesn't mean abandoning our legitimate role in the world--as if that could be done. But it does mean avoiding own goals, such as stupid wars. Buchanan:

Trump is eager to make good on his promises and remove many of the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan before Election Day. Yet such a move is not without risks. Given the strength of the Taliban, the casualties they are able to inflict, the inability of the Afghan army to hold territory, and the constant atrocities in the capital city of Kabul, a Saigon ’75 end to the Afghan war is not outside the realm of the possible.

Nor is a shooting war with Iran that rivets the nation’s attention.

Yesterday, U.S. F-15s, in five attacks, hit munitions depots and a command center of the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia in Syria and Iraq, a retaliatory raid for a rocket attack on a U.S. training camp that killed an American contractor and wounded four U.S. soldiers.

“For those who ask about the response,” warns a Kataib Hezbollah spokesman, “it will be the size of our faith.”

One has to expect Iran and its militia in Iraq to respond in kind.

They have a track record. During 2019, with its economy choked by U.S. sanctions, Iran and its allies sabotaged oil tankers in the Gulf, shot down a $130 million U.S. Predator drone, and shut down with missiles and drones half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production.

In former times, a confrontation or shooting war often benefitted the incumbent, as there was almost always a rallying to the flag. Those days are gone. This generation has had its fill of wars.

About Those NSA Databases

Larry Johnson has a great post today over at Sic Semper Tyrannis: We Were Warned About the Deep State, but Refused to Listen. Read it all--it's not that long. Here's a thumbnail of it, and the two videos that Johnson links (also not that long), which really give a great picture of Deep State capabilities. Be sure to watch both.

To start with, it's necessary to understand that there are no real good guys in this--except for the whistleblowers. Binney and Tice are real whistleblowers, not bureaucratic, political hitmen like Ciaramella and his ilk.

The expansive data collection that continues to this day began shortly after 9/11, under Dubya--and accelerated under Obama. For all the posturing by elected officials, it has been bipartisan pretty much from the start.

In one of the videos, Bill Binney--the same guy who says that the DNC "hack" was an inside job--maintains that this expansive program is 1) not necessary to protect against terrorists, and 2) increases the size of the haystack that needs to be searched. Binney and Tice communicate the true extent of the domestic spying--and it's mind blowing.

Here's what Johnson says with specific reference to what was done to Trump:

Is Obama In Barr's Crosshairs?

In this season of joy, Impeachment Theater, FISA reports, and Barr and Durham speaking out, Eric Zuesse has an interesting article at Zerohedge on a topic that I've pondered since much earlier this year. Zuesse suggests that the Russiagate Investigation Now Endangers Obama.

Zuesse doesn't offer too much in the way of specifics--possible charges, for example--but he does focus on the legal jeopardy in which disgraced former FBI Director finds himself, and what that could mean for Obama. This is an important point, and I, for one, don't find it far fetched:

Former US President Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned 180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs. 

The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or her own personal reasons. ... and Mr. Obama is now being actively investigated, as possibly having done this. ...

Zuesse's speculation comes in the context of the OIG FISA report and the subsequent FISC order, both highly critical of Comey's--and Obama's--FBI. In that regard he quotes from a remarkable response that AG Bill Barr gave to Comey's defense of himself for the FBI's FISA abuses. Barr frankly placed responsibility squarely on Comey and called Comey a liar:

On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News, interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr, and asked him (at 7:00 in the video) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes: 

MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama’s FBI Director James Comey] seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? 

“JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can’t run an investigation that’s seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do.” 

MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? 

BARR: No, I think that the — one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true.

That's extremely plain speech coming from an AG, and bodes ill for Comey. Zuesse follows this up by pointing out the impact of Comey's situation on Obama, emphasizing the collusion with foreign intelligence services that began at some point in 2015. Zuesse, misguidedly, tries to tie this to a "treason" theory, but I say it plays very nicely into the overall big picture conspiracy theory:

Educated Idiots

Yesterday commenter Anonymous linked to a tweet by one John Sipher:

Bias? He's British? He doesn't care about our politics. When he uncovered what looked wrong, he went to the FBI. It just one of the Trump team did that much of this could have been avoided. How is it that a Brit is more patriotic than anyone in the Trump campaign?

— John Sipher (@john_sipher) August 21, 2018

Sipher describes himself as:

Former CIA Clandestine Service. Sometimes writes and talks about stuff. Good Father, Decent Husband and Excellent dog owner. Much nicer than my picture suggests

Which suggests that he treats his dog better than his wife and kids. Or maybe that he simply likes his dog better. Whatever!

Does it disturb you to learn that a former member of the CIA Clandestine Service would espouse such a naively idiotic opinion? After all, doesn't the CIA recruit mainly in the Ivy Leagues? Of course, that same idiotic opinion was palmed off by coup plotter extraordinaire SSA Joe Pientka [is that Joe Friday in Polish?] to DoJ's Office of "Intelligence". Lawyers are supposed to be educated, in a sorta way, I guess. And presumably DoJ accepted the goofball suggestion that foreigners, just because they're foreigners, have no interest in or preference as to whom Americans elect as our president. Go figure, eh? Educated idiots!

So I was already sensitized--or triggered?--to the whole idea of educated idiocy when, this morning, I read Byron York's fascinating No, the Senate is not a jury, and other misconceptions about impeachment. The article wasn't fascinating because I learned anything new by reading it--I didn't, and I doubt, I hope, that any reader of this blog will learn anything new from York's article. Even though I recommend it. Rather, it was fascinating because it afforded a remarkable insight into the mentality of educated idiots.

The article centers around the views of one Timothy Snyder. Here is York's description of Snyder:

SSA 1 Joe Pientka And Chris Steele

Jeff Carlson has produced a long and thorough summary of FBI official (aka SSA 1) Joe Pientka's involvment in the FBI's attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign and presidency. Pientka, of course, is probably best known for his role in the FBI's framing of Michael Flynn--he, along with Peter Strzok, interviewed Flynn in the White House. However, as we've discussed, Pientka played a central role in the entire Russia Hoax, serving as Strzok's right hand man, a handler for both Chris Steele and Bruce Ohr. He was also involved, as documented by the OIG report, in selecting the informants to target against the Trump campaign. Carlson also points out that the OIG report documents that Pientka was very well aware of derogatory information regarding Steele as well as information that totally undercut the entire basis for the FBI's FISA applications against Carter Page. For example, Pientka knew that, although Steele characterized Page as the go between for Paul Manafort and the Trump campaign and the Russian government, in fact Page had essentially no contact with Manafort whatsoever--that whole narrative was known to be BS.

Carlson's whole summary is worth reading: FBI Agent Who Interviewed Gen. Flynn Played Critical Role in Trump Campaign Investigation. However, this brief passage gives a flavor for Pientka's MO, and also contains something that I found rather amusing.

UPDATED: A Unified GOP Impeachment Strategy

While the idea of a blowout, all-the-witnesses-in-the-world, Senate trial was tempting, I eventually came down on the side of refusing to dignify the Dem House Impeachment Theater in that way. That aspect of the anti-Trump coup attempt is probably better handled in the long run by Barr and Durham.

In the meantime, Mitch McConnell has been sounding out the Senate GOP and coordinating with the White House. According to The Hill (via the NY Post), Trump impeachment: Senate GOP reportedly unites behind a no-witness trial, the Senate GOP and White House have come up with a grand unified strategy of sorts:

After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal. 

“I’m ready to vote now,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) told The Hill. “I think the articles are a joke.” 

But they don’t want to dismiss the House Democrats’ charges out of hand, as some Trump allies have proposed. 

“It’s time for him to have his day in court,” Hawley said. “The president deserves to have due process.” 

Trump, who was calling for a full-blown trial with multiple witnesses — including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter — just three weeks ago, now supports the Senate leadership’s plan. 

“The facts belie the allegation and the facts speak very strongly for themselves,” Eric Ueland, White House director of legislative affairs, said last week.

Of course, this may require a change in the Senate rules governing impeachment, to allow the Senate to begin without having had the articles "transmitted" by the House. That's if Pelosi remains obstinate.

The Hill's account provides lots more in the way of quotes from GOP senators offering their views, but the consensus has turned to: the shorter the better, but we want an acquittal, not a dismissal:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said his goal is “to have as short a trial as possible.” 

“I think there's a desire by senators, quite honestly, to get this chapter closed and moved forward,” Graham told reporters.  

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said that when it comes to a trial “shorter is better,” and that he thought his colleagues were coalescing behind that.  

“I think shorter is better for lots of reasons,” Cramer said. “I think people are ready to move on.”  

Republicans are also stressing though that they don’t want to simply dismiss the articles against Trump. The House voted earlier this month to impeach Trump on two counts: one charging him with abuse of power in his dealings with Ukraine and the second with obstructing Congress during its investigation of those actions. 

“I’m ready to get this thing and get it done,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “It’s time for him to have his day in court. … I don’t want to a vote to dismiss. I want a vote to acquit. The president deserves to have due process.”  

Graham, who previously advocated dismissing the articles, added that a “motion dismissed will not stand. … I don't want a motion to dismiss. I want a vote on the articles themselves.”  

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has emerged as a close ally of Trump’s, has floated trying to dismiss the article, including telling The Washington Post in November that he would make the motion “as soon as we possibly can.” A motion to dismiss would need 51 votes, and members of GOP leadership have suggested it would fall short.  

Asked after the House impeachment vote if he still wanted to dismiss the articles instead of going through a trial, Paul sidestepped, telling The Hill that the “whole idea of the impeachment inquiry was ill-conceived … so I think the quicker it can be done the better.”

UPDATE: We previously discussed the House's motives in this rushed impeachment: The Rushed Impeachment--Now We Know Why. However, CTH has a nice reprise of the issue today, which they covered before: Anticipate House Impeachment Articles After January 3rd, 2020 – Oral Arguments for Mueller Grand Jury Material.

A Second Opinion

I've written about FISA so much by now that I'm also sick of hearing about it. However, AmThinker has an article today by another former FBI agent who relates his experience with FISA: Two Possibilities in Trump Wiretapping, and Neither Is Good. The author's experience matches my own and I recommend the article highly. After presenting an overview of FISA--which rightly points out that any FISA on a US person is exceptional--the writer concludes:

Based on what we are told by the I.G., there are only two possible conclusions that can be reached regarding the official conduct of those responsible for infringing on Carter Pages Constitutional freedoms:  

The first is that the hand selected team of investigators, attorneys, and Senior Executive Service officials with decades of law enforcement, administrative, and judicial experience were abject failures at a task that they were hired to perform. Speaking from personal experience, in FBI, DEA, and state and local wire tap investigations, the slightest omissions, misstatements, and clerical errors are routinely identified and corrected by the street agents and line prosecutors who do these investigations for a living. To believe that a "varsity level" team, with unlimited time, support, and resources, somehow inadvertently overlooked seventeen major omissions, misstatements, and/or outright falsehoods, is simply not believable.  

The second possibility is that nearly everyone who significantly participated in obtaining FISA coverage on Page knowingly and deliberately operated outside the law to one degree or another. The reasons behind the decision to do so are irrelevant. The particulars regarding the seventeen I.G. findings are startling, taken individually. It's difficult to see how any of the individual omissions or misstatements could have happened accidentally. Viewed collectively, the apparent intentionality is nearly impossible to reconcile as anything but corruption. 

Speaking for myself--and you'll see where I'm coming from if you read the article--I came to the second alternative almost immediately after beginning to learn just a small bit about the Carter Page situation. Nothing added up. The result was that, outrageous as it might seem, I had to conclude that intentional corruption was really the only possible explanation for what occurred.

It's All Good News

CTH has linked to an important article at Politico, and it's all good news. Very good news.

The CTH post is quite amusing--for what it doesn't say. We all know that sundance has been pushing the line that his controllers feed him: AG Barr is a bad guy, a swamp dweller looking to double cross all right thinking Americans. So, it's funny to read the CTH subject line, Dirty Spooks Concerned About Barr and Durham. You might expect from the subject line that there would be some mention of Barr, and maybe even an apology of sorts--given that if the Dirty Spooks are concerned about Barr then Barr has to be doing something right. Right? You'd be wrong if that was your expectation. Instead there's only one additional mention of Barr by sundance:

Apparently, if the article is semi-accurate, John Durham and Bill Barr are working around ICIG Michael Atkinson. That would be good news because Atkinson is a dirty cop, completely compromised.

Sundance even manages to quote at length from the Politico article (authored by Natasha Bertrand), while carefully excising all mention of Barr. Well, in fairness, he does omit his usual Bagpipe Bill photo from the post.

You may remember when Barr was nominated that I quoted from profiles of Barr, in which lawyers who had either worked with Barr or against Barr related how shockingly aggressive Barr is as a litigator. A portrait so much at odds with Barr's seemingly genial public persona. But those lawyers were guys like Barr--at the top of their profession--and if they were shocked you can imagine just how tough a litigator/prosecutor/investigator/political operator Barr is. Moreover, not only does Barr have plenty of experience in the Intel world, but he also likes to make his own mind up--which must be extremely unsettling for those under his microscope.

Keep that in mind as you read the following excerpts from a very heartening article, written by an author who is a determined opponent of Barr and a Deep State propagandist. And just imagine the dismay, and fear, being experienced by Deep State actors as they increasingly come face to face with Barr and his chosen bulldog, Durham. Any illusions that this nightmare will somehow just go away must have been dispelled long ago. That part is all over except for the squealing that we're hearing:

Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Rosenstein--Liars All?

It certainly seems likely, based on the facts developed by IG Horowitz's FISA investigation--and, of course, it was always likely simply as an a priori assumption. Today TGP continues the deep dive into the facts assembled by Horowitz that's being conducted by independent internet researchers, and they come up with some goodies for the holiday season: IG Report Reveals Someone’s Not Telling the Truth – AG Lynch, Comey, McCabe and Rosenstein All Caught in Conflicting Accounts.

With regard to disgraced former FBI execs Comey and McCabe vis a vis former AG Loretta Lynch, the issue is whether Lynch was ever briefed on Crossfire Hurricane and the Carter Page FISAs. She says she didn't know anything about the FISA--which can't possibly be true--but that Comey told her about the investigation of Page as a Russian agent. That, of course, is highly likely, but Lynch says that happened in "spring of 2016." Woops! Not good for Comey and McCabe, since they claim they weren't doing much of anything until the end of July, so they have to deny Lynch's story. Uh oh! Deep State, we have a conflict!

As interesting as all that is--and TGP has lots of details--the Rosenstein information is, to me, the most fascinating for the long run, because it inevitably leads right into the Mueller Witchhunt. I've called Rosenstein a "weasel" in the past, but I've never suggested he's stupid. But you'd have to be stupid yourself to believe the things he told the IG. Check this out:

Horowitz Unearthed More Steele Conspiracy Tales

IG Michael Horowitz's FISA report continues to be scrutinized and mined for relevant new facts that shed light on the origins and development of the Russia Hoax. Today at the Washington Examiner Rowan Scarborough lays out new facts that demonstrate that the Russia Hoax was rooted in cynically contrived conspiracy theories emanating from the Clinton camp.

In Trump conspiracy theories beyond the Steele dossier were passed to FBI Scarborogh documents from the FISA report that Christopher Steele provided the FBI with at least three additional anti-Trump conspiracy stories, all of which were as untrue as those contained in his "dossier" memos. We can leave to another time the whole question of who actually wrote these materials and simply note that Steele spread them.

Scarborough provides a usefull account of Steele's connections to the Hillary campaign through Fusion GPS, his meetings with reporters and with FBI officials, as well as his provision of materials to political figures such as John McCain. IG Horowitz put together a timeline for Steele's activities and, in doing so, discovered that there was more to Steele's involvement in the election than merely the dossier. Here are the three new items presented in the FISA report.